First: shame on you, @SYSKPodcast, for distilling polyamory down to being basically "a bunch of people cohabitating, not married, who all have sexual access to each other." (Words paraphrased, but not by very much.)
Not to sound stereotypical, but is it always about sex with you being guys? :3
First, please take a look at the root words implicit in the word 'polyamory.' Poly-, meaning 'many.' -amory, as in, love. Multiple love. And that's it.
What about 'sexual access?' Well, sure, that can be implied. People in love, who are of a desire to have sex with each other, generally tend to at some point. But just being in a polyamorous relationship does not necessarily mandate that orgies can break out at the drop of a hat. I believe you have even said in a few of your podcasts, "correlation does not imply causation" and words to the effect. Poly people might have sex. That doesn't mean that's why they're poly.
Now, I know, by 'sexual access,' you are being clinical and probably intended to be correct and probably (hopefully?) wanted so badly to imply 'access means the ability to have sex, not necessarily the absolute constant act.' But my friends, that's not how the podcast played the concept out. You spoke at length about reproductive issues, family planning, etc. It was rapidly clear that by 'sexual access,' intentionally or no, you were iplying that sex is something that is definitely going on in said relationship and was a defining part of it, just by talking about sex to the length you did.
I am poly, both in my real life (as A) and in my virtual life (as Elisha). Does that mean that I have sex with everyone in my poly group that I come in contact with?
Ha! They only wish. (tongue in cheek -- my own)
In my real life, I am in a fairly committed relationship with one man. This committed relationship, for what its worth, does include (rather good) sex. However, I have at various times, been in relationships with others at the same time. Others who all knew of each other, approved of each other, but -- and this is the important part -- did not necessarily want to do the boinkity boink with each other. Further, at the moment, there are another two people I am madly in love with, who reciprocate, and none of the three of us have any desire to necessarily "have sexual access" with each other. These two are purely romantic, supportive, emotional relationships that have effectively no sexual motive at all whatsoever.
Virtually, I am also in a strong relationship with a small rosette of people. There are moderate romantic and affectionate relationships with a few others. And do we all have cybersex, and cyber orgies? Frankly: some of the people in my 'polyamorous cloud' actually strongly dislike each other. Or are of the incorrect sexual preference to even be desirable. They're not in the relationship to have sexual access to each other. They're in it because they're in love with me, and I love them as well.
(An aside: yes, online relationships are just as able to contain love and passion and tenderness and emotion as physical ones. Even if the online selves never meet in meatspace. Love is love is love no matter how, or where, it is expressed. Desire too. Affection as well.)
So, if you were to ask me if either of my poly clouds (virtual or real) fit your definition, I would have to smile and say, "no."
What my clouds are, are are groups of people who may, or may not, love other portions of the rest of the group in varying degrees, who may or may not have sex with each other in whatever manner appropriate to the medium, but who in some way do feature me either as a beloved girlfriend, partner, mate, playmate, caregiver, confidante, friend, and what have you. That's what polyamory is.
To me, anyway.
I love your podcast, I don't want to think that you two are flawed in your research and thinking. You have a lot of stuff to distill down into a short format to hit the essentials (and really, it was about polygamy and bigamy law, and not polyamory specifically) but... maybe a better concise summary of polyamory that you could have used without making it seem like a casa de orgy could have been "polyamory is a group of people in a multiply-committed relationship sans marriage." It's much more correct, much more accurate, and doesn't read like a potential slight on the poly community
I would like to think of this as more of a correction, and clarification, and chance for further research and introspection on the topic, than a criticism. Therefore, I suggest http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page6.html for some information about what polyamory is, and isn't. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-polyamory.htm is also very good too, as is http://www.lovemore.com/faq.php, which is generally my go-to page when I need to explain what poly is, and isn't.
And I leave you with this though: if it were all about the sex, being poly wouldn't be hard work. And it is very, very hard work. Enough people have hard enough time maintaining one stable relationship, but who would agree it is worth doing so if they can pull it off.
Try maintaining three, or more.
But when it works, it is so definitely worth it.
And that said: I love you, Scott. And Mark. And Rachael. And Vanora. And Azure. And Sue. And Chakku. And Amanda. And Starry. And Sarny. And Drav...
No comments:
Post a Comment